Australian Football

From hubs to subs, but some things don't change

×

Right ▼

+

From a footy perspective, last year was the Year of the Hubs. In 2021, Year of the Subs might be the most apt moniker.

The AFL's introduction of a ‘medical substitute’ rule on the eve of the 2021 season came as a surprise to many. Instituting a rule change of such magnitude so close to a season's opening match is unprecedented. But the timing of the change was not the only aspect that raised eyebrows.

Very few would argue with the philosophy behind the substitution rule. Greater understanding of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) has led to all football codes seeking to minimise the risk and prevalence of concussion injuries, and to ensure that players who are concussed are allowed time to fully recover. As an extension of this approach, the idea of a "concussion sub" was floated some time ago, and the AFL voted to introduce the rule for the 2021 season last Wednesday, barely 24 hours before the opening match between Richmond and Carlton.

What caught many off guard when the rule was announced, was the expansion of the proposal to take in all injuries sustained during a match, not just concussion. The rule allows for a team to nominate a 23rd player, who can be 'activated' as a replacement for any player who suffers an in-game injury.

The intent behind the rule is to ensure the team of a player who suffers an injury is not at a substantial disadvantage. However, many believe that the existing "bench" of four players, who can be rotated on and off the ground at any time, already suffices, and espouses the tradition of Australian football being a game of attrition. There is also concern that the rule will be open to exploitation, with coaches instructing players to feign injury, using the substitution as a tactical measure.

A third aspect that has raised the hackles of fans, commentators and players alike, is the fact that the nominated substitute will be credited with playing a match, even if they do not take the field, meaning a first-game player who is named as substitute could have a rather hollow debut match. This has already happened several times in 2021. Hawthorn selected Connor Downie (above right) as its medical sub in Round 1, and he was not required to take the field. But, as it was officially Downie's first official AFL match, he joined in the post-match celebrations after the Hawks came from behind to win a thriller, and was given the traditional Gatorade shower as a first-time winner.

Whichever side of the fence one falls on, there is really nothing new about this debate. Before the introduction of the interchange rule in 1978, teams were allowed a 19th and 20th man, who could replace a player on the field at any time. But once the change was made, it could not be reversed, and so substitutions were generally only made in case of injury or late in the match, tactically. If a side was performing well, one or both of the reserve players could spend the entire match sitting "on the pine".

×

Left ▼

+

There are numerous such examples, including players who were never again selected. One notable example is Fitzroy's Jack Clancy (left), who was named as the Lions' 20th man for their 1957 match against Melbourne. The Lions had a thrilling three-point win, but Clancy was never called upon by coach Bill Stephen.

Clancy was undaunted, especially after a trainer told him on the following Tuesday he was a certainty to get a game sooner rather than later. Clancy was relegated to the seconds the following week, but after six weeks of being listed in the best players was once more on the verge of senior selection. Sadly, disaster struck, in the form of a serious knee injury, effectively ending Clancy's chances of extending his VFL career beyond that first match, which he had spent watching from the sidelines.

Connor Downie will be hoping not to reprise Jack Clancy's story. Since his Round 1 'debut', Downie has not yet been selected again in Hawthorn's senior line-up. 

As for the argument surrounding coaches exploiting the substitution rule, that, too, is "old news". In 1946 when Australian Football Council approved the introduction of a 20th man (until 1945, just one reserve player, a 19th man, had been allowed), several football commentators cried foul. The headline in the Weekly Times of February 27 in that year read, "Twentieth Man May Encourage Trickery", with columnist 'Clubman' arguing that clubs, "will not hesitate to take unfair advantage of the extra man. 'Tactical casualties' are so easy to manufacture."¹

Footy has undergone many changes in the last 75 years, but some things haven't changed at all.